The assumption that "she asked for it" has never been universal. Yes, some less thoughtful people have held it, but not reasonable ones. It's tied to the belief that being sexually aroused makes men completely uncontrollable. (Fooey!)

But there's another standard, one that my mother held, that is completely ridiculous in my eye. That is the idea that, when sexually harassed in public, the woman should not make a fuss. She thought that, for example, my friend Chris was very rude for confronting a groper and yelling at him, "How DARE you touch my body! It's MINE and you have no right to do that!" (Note that she didn't swear, she just told the truth, loudly.)

There's a double standard for you. "If a man does something completely unacceptable in public, a woman must shut up and take it, or appear ill-mannered." Sorry, Mom. You're wrong on this one.

She thought it was fine to react silently, though, like the time in the NY subway when someone's hand came over my shoulder and grabbed one of my "girls." I bit him as hard as I could. She was fine with that. Go figure.

Logged

If you have an opinion about my life, raise your hand!Now, put it over your mouth.

Safety before etiquette. Shutting him down is more important than his feelings at this point- you don't want to leave a creep like this with any "hope" that he can change her mind.

This was not a safety issue. The OP gave no indication that she felt nervous or at risk or anything other than annoyed at this guy's persistence. The bus driver was also engaged in the conversation. It's not like she was cornered in the back by herself. And if the guy had been scary, why provoke him further by making fun of him?

The rules of etiquette do not go out the window when people are rude or inconsiderate or insensitive to hints. Those times are what the rules of etiquette are for. Now I'm not trying to beat up on the OP, and I'm not saying that her behavior was overly egregious or anything like that. But this story seems to be presented as an example of the correct way to handle a situation like this, and I think a more direct approach earlier on would have been better. This is a place for opinions, and I'm OK with being in the minority on this one.

I fail to see how the OP was snarky or rude. Public embarassment has long been used as an etiquette tool. If the man had cued in on the obvious hint the OP would not have needed a rejoinder to his crass pick up line.

That being said, I see this an example of how complete silence failed rather than worked.

I think you did fine! As far as I'm concerned, you could be as snarky as you want! He was a jerk and got what he deserved.

Just because someone is a "jerk" does not give one carte blanche to be snarky or mean. It is called retaliatory rudeness and it is not endorsed at ehell.

I wasn't going to say anything at all, but hey, three strikes.

I didn't mean to imply that you were rude Yogachick (although I think you should have simply stated that you were not interested rather than what you did say). I was responding to delphinium's reasoning that it is acceptable to be as snarky as one pleases to people deemed "jerks."

I think you did fine! As far as I'm concerned, you could be as snarky as you want! He was a jerk and got what he deserved.

Just because someone is a "jerk" does not give one carte blanche to be snarky or mean. It is called retaliatory rudeness and it is not endorsed at ehell.

I wasn't going to say anything at all, but hey, three strikes.

I didn't mean to imply that you were rude Yogachick (although I think you should have simply stated that you were not interested rather than what you did say). I was responding to delphinium's reasoning that it is acceptable to be as snarky as one pleases to people deemed "jerks."

I guess I explained myself badly--I didn't WANT to say anything (partly because I was frozen in shock that a strange guy would ask me over to his house for a booty call, even jokingly), but ignoring it didn't work, and I don't think that saying "I'm not interested" would have worked either. Save for getting off the bus and making the (approximately) 20-minute walk home in the snow (think Canadian winter), I don't think there's anything else I could have done.

What would have been better for her to say? "Please stop sexually harassing me?"

We want our young girls to respond verbally (and physically, if necessary) to physical or sexual harassment or to encroachments by strangers that we are not comfortable with. But when somebody does it, we tell them that they're rude.

IMO, if YogaChick had responded to his College-lanyard-weirdness with snark, then yes, that would be retaliatory rudeness.

But once a guy makes a comment to me basically insinuating that he wants to have sex with me, I feel it's completely within my rights to communicate to him that I want nothing to do with him and he needs to leave me alone. That's not rude, that's assertive.

I fail to see how the OP was snarky or rude. Public embarassment has long been used as an etiquette tool. If the man had cued in on the obvious hint the OP would not have needed a rejoinder to his crass pick up line.

That being said, I see this an example of how complete silence failed rather than worked.

I'm inclined to agree with this 100%. I do not see that the OP was rude at all.

Yes, it's terrible to be slightly snarky to strange men on the bus who are using blantant come-ons.

That's called retaliatory rudeness and is not something that is appropriate, etiquette-wise. There were better ways of handling his come on without being rude, as a PP has already noted.

Ah, yes. The "Don't make him feel bad for assuming that you'll be grateful for his sexual attentions" approach. Unfortunately, how often does that work? Men who have the rudeness to approach women going about their daily business for such purposes are rarely sensitive enough to appreciate "I'm honoured by your offer, but it's unfortunately not possible."

It is not rudeness to decline an offensive offer (and to be told, blatantly, that a stranger is trying to pick you up is offensive to many women) in a direct manner. In fact, in such cases, it's possibly the safest thing to do. (There are a lot of court cases for sexual assault in my country where the man claims "She didn't REALLY tell me she wasn't interested, so I thought I was OK to go ahead. She was just playing hard to get." And, unfortunately, a number of juries and judges who agree that, short of hitting him in the solar plexus and screaming, you're "going along with it".)

Logged

My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

[Stupid excuse that] "...She was just playing hard to get." And, unfortunately, a number of juries and judges who agree that, short of hitting him in the solar plexus and screaming, you're "going along with it".

This is why some colleges have been publicly emphasizing that "No means No." There are many men who actually believe that, unless you reply in a way that is clearly antagonistic, "no" means "maybe."

A polite "No, thank you," falls into this "maybe" category. We Ehellions need to find a way to be clearly antagonistic without being rude. It's a fine line. To say "I'm not in the habit of playing scrabble with strange men" sounds like you might feel like changing that habit. How about:

I never scrabble with strangers.You do not meet my standards.You are not my husband, and I scrabble only with him.

Or the silent, fish-like stare, meaning, "WHAT did you just ask me?"

What else, fellow Ehellions?

Logged

If you have an opinion about my life, raise your hand!Now, put it over your mouth.